Mr. Roberts said, using the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction. "This was a global intelligence failure."

...........On one important point, the committee found the C.I.A.'s conclusions reasonable — that there had been no significant ties between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda terrorists.

..........."There is simply no question that mistakes leading up to the war in Iraq rank among the most devastating losses and intelligence failures in the history of the nation," Mr. Rockefeller said. "The fact is that the administration at all levels, and to some extent us, used bad information to bolster its case for war. And we in Congress would not have authorized that war — we would NOT have authorized that war — with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."

............."Tragically, the intelligence failure set forth in this report will affect our national security for generations to come," Mr. Rockefeller said. "Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."

...............Senator Pat Roberts, the top Republican on the panel, said that assessments that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons were wrong.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$

Well, what say ye, those of the opinion this war is justified?

highsea

07-10-2004, 04:04 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>Well, what say ye, those of the opinion this war is justified?<hr /></blockquote> I say next stop, Iran.

crawdaddio

07-10-2004, 05:32 PM

I figured you would say something like that.

eg8r

07-10-2004, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, what say ye, those of the opinion this war is justified? <hr /></blockquote> It is apparent your idea is not really to question whether the war was justified or not. This is obvious because you have decided to completely ignore the past 14 years or so. Those alone were justification enough. On top of that, you have decided to completely ignore the fact that most every single person in Congress, who is on record for the past 12 years, has also agreed there were weapons. Would it also be too hard for you to believe that the WMD's and materials used to make them would be very easy to hide in a country the size of California? Saddam had fighter jets buried in the desert, you don't think some vials of chemical weapons MIGHT be buried also? What about the "chance" that they have been moved across borders? What about the single MOST IMPORTANT fact, Saddam admitted to having them?

Lastly, I find it quite funny that you chose this quote to pull and post... [ QUOTE ]
...........On one important point, the committee found the C.I.A.'s conclusions reasonable — that there had been no significant ties between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda terrorists.
<hr /></blockquote> The very mention of Al Qaeda is made to make the reader believe somehow that Bush felt Saddam had some ties to what happened on 9/11. BUSH NEVER EVER SAID HE BELIEVED SADDAM HAD ANY PART IN 9/11 OR ANY TIES TO AL QAEDA IN THEIR PLOT OF 9/11. You might be quite surprised that the 9/11 committee admits there were ties between Saddam his top officials with members of Al Qaeda but there has never been any mention of ties with Al Qaeda and 9/11.

eg8r &lt;~~~Stepping off the soapbox /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

crawdaddio

07-10-2004, 10:05 PM

There is no doubt that Saddam, at some point, had chemical and/or biological weapons. We know about the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians. The US supplied at least some of them.(At least I have read accounts of this.) I am not ignoring Iraq's past attrocities, only questioning if that is a valid (or actual) reason for this war and occupation. If these are valid causes for a US invasion, then why are we not invading North Korea. If we are the global weapons police, should we not police fairly and evenly? Did YOU or anyone you know actually fear Saddam, or anyone he was tied to, attacking Americans before 911? If so, then you have more information than I, please share. Whether or not Bush publicly linked Saddam to Al Qaeda or not is irrelevant. Millions of people got that impression, where did it come from? Something around 70%(?) of americans polled in the months after 911 believed that Saddam was outright responsible. Most of the people I spoke with in this town felt this way.

So, my point is, the US government uses tactics of misinformation to lead our people to war. I believe that there were many alterior motives in the white house for this war, and I for one, would like to know what they were. Too bad I probably never will........

bluewolf

07-11-2004, 03:40 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> There is no doubt that Saddam, at some point, had chemical and/or biological weapons. We know about the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians. The US supplied at least some of them.(At least I have read accounts of this.) I am not ignoring Iraq's past attrocities, only questioning if that is a valid (or actual) reason for this war and occupation. If these are valid causes for a US invasion, then why are we not invading North Korea. .... <hr /></blockquote>

After ww11, we promised ourselves as a nation, that we would never allow another hitler. Hitler killed 5million jews. sadaam killed 5m kurds, 5m sheik muslims and 7 million iranians. We did nothing when we knew the kurds were being killed. We were just as guilty, imo, as we were, before Hitler was a threat, in watching all the jews being slaughtered. We did not believe I guess that war aginst Hitler was justified until the us was attacked.

While it is true that sadaam did not pose the threat that Hitler did in terms of the quest for world domination, sadaam was in all other respects a modern day Hitler.

I have a chiropractor who is iranian by birth. his family fled to the us during the iraq, iran war. he said, the kids would be told that they were goin on a field trip, loaded on buses and taken to the front lines where they were slaughered by sadaam. He said that they lived in constant fear.

I sort of see it like this. The probem was the same in ww11, the congress would not have backed the war unless they thought that sadaam was a threat to us, so they were told that he was so that they would approve going to war.

So, the way I see it, is that it was the right thing to destroy sadaam, the wrong thing to make the reasons appear different than they were.

I think that Bush did the right thing but was not totally upfront about why he felt that we had to go to war.

There are other countries like Iran that do have wmd, so guess we could justify going after them too, but n korea is different. An attack on nkorea could result in thermonuclear warefare and the end of all life as we know it.

Laura

eg8r

07-11-2004, 02:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The US supplied at least some of them.(At least I have read accounts of this.) <hr /></blockquote> We definintely have our dirty laundry.

[ QUOTE ]
If these are valid causes for a US invasion, then why are we not invading North Korea. <hr /></blockquote> Just when exactly would you have expected us to do this? C'mon, be honest when you answer this. Should we just go into a country, bomb it and leave so that we can move on to the next? Why can't North Korea be dealt with when we are freeing ourselves a little more from the burdens we have already undertaken?

[ QUOTE ]
Did YOU or anyone you know actually fear Saddam, or anyone he was tied to, attacking Americans before 911? If so, then you have more information than I, please share. <hr /></blockquote> Sure, at least some. This is not about having any more information, it is probably more about you just opening your eyes and paying attention to what is going on. Saddam threatened Bush Sr. I don't think I am now or ever was too scared about Iraq threatening us, however I have worried in the past about Saddam selling his WMDs to those who could get to us.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not Bush publicly linked Saddam to Al Qaeda or not is irrelevant. Millions of people got that impression, where did it come from? <hr /></blockquote> Where do you think they got the impression? The media!!!! If you don't think there is an agenda going on in the media, then please tell me just how much good you have heard in Iraq. When did we hear about all the hospitals and schools opening back up?

[ QUOTE ]
Millions of people got that impression, where did it come from? Something around 70%(?) of americans polled in the months after 911 believed that Saddam was outright responsible. <hr /></blockquote> Millions of people have impressions about everything, but does the quantity of people believing one thing change the real facts? If you know what is being fed to you by the media is wrong, why continue to perpetuate it?

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that there were many alterior motives in the white house for this war, and I for one, would like to know what they were. Too bad I probably never will........ <hr /></blockquote> I guess there just is not much to say, you chastise the White House for passing on misinformation which is much what you just did in your original post. What you believe is what you believe, right or wrong that is what it is.

eg8r

crawdaddio

07-11-2004, 02:37 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I guess there just is not much to say, you chastise the White House for passing on misinformation which is much what you just did in your original post. What you believe is what you believe, right or wrong that is what it is.<hr /></blockquote>

All I did was quote a New York Times news article and ask for opinions about it, which I have enjoyed reading.

highsea

07-11-2004, 03:43 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>All I did was quote a New York Times news article and ask for opinions about it, which I have enjoyed reading.<hr /></blockquote>
Just a suggestion David, maybe next time you can give us your opinion or commentary on the article when you make the post.

It's kind of a forum etiquette thing, ya know? Anyone can cut and paste online. When you start a new thread, it's customary to say something about the topic.

-CM

Sid_Vicious

07-11-2004, 05:17 PM

Quoting a prominent source, and pissing in some consevatives punch bowl with the determined facts will prompt arrows and spears, and lame excuses to say the least. We've let this administration break the principles this nation was dedicated to, we've played right into bin Laden's hands, and given the US a horrendously tainted reputation and a seriously more dangerous situation for years and years. Some short guy in Washington pushed this nation and all of the civilized world into peril. It's beyond me how anyone can justify this situation, and yes N Korea is far more worrisome. Nobody will ever convice me otherwise that an agenda was always in place to invade Iraq and that so called facts about WMD were made up. This is a crime in a monumental proportion, we'll never get out of this mess in our lifetimes, nor will generations to come contain it without a total loss of face. The shrub should be restless at night trying to sleep,,,that dim wit is still without a clue what to do, just like he was at the school in Florida. This is truly pathetic..sid

eg8r

07-11-2004, 06:41 PM

While I am willing to bet this post by Sid will be much like the rest, maybe he will prove me wrong. My guess is that this is another of his one hit wonders where he pops in, says absolutely bunk and never offers anything to back what he says.

Instead of asking any real tough questions, can you please try and answer this one... Based on this quote,[ QUOTE ]
We've let this administration break the principles this nation was dedicated to, <hr /></blockquote> would you please identify the principles in which you are referring? I hope I don't get some real informative answer like, "you took the quote out of context". This should be easy since you are the one that brought it up. Until you even try out this one, there would be no sense reading the rest.

eg8r

Qtec

07-12-2004, 03:47 AM

quote eg8r,

"BUSH NEVER EVER SAID HE BELIEVED SADDAM HAD ANY PART IN 9/11 OR ANY TIES TO AL QAEDA IN THEIR PLOT OF 9/11. You might be quite surprised that the 9/11 committee admits there were ties between Saddam his top officials with members of Al Qaeda but there has never been any mention of ties with Al Qaeda and 9/11."

You are absolutley correct. I cant imagine how anyone could come to such a conclusion!!!!!!
Maybe it is the fault of the media. LOL

One senior counterterrorism official confirmed that the CIA knew of the detentions and that U.S. officials have not interrogated the prisoners. "We really don't know whether they are under al Qaeda or Saddam's control," the official said. "Ansar trained in Afghan camps. They used Afghanistan as their headquarters. It's tough to nail down the other details. It's not implausible that they are working with Saddam. His intel links into northern Iraq are very strong." Senior counterterrorism official
unknown
9/10/2002

The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive. George W. Bush, President
Remarks By President Bush, The Oval Office
9/25/2002

So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
9/26/2002

Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Comments To Reporters
9/27/2002

We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases . George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
10/14/2002

This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda
George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome
10/28/2002

He's got connections with al Qaeda .
George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
10/28/2002

This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks .
George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome
10/31/2002

We know he's got ties with al Qaeda .
George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome
11/1/2002

in terms of its [Iraq's] support for terrorism, we have established that Iraq has permitted Al-Qaeda to operate within its territory. As the President said recently, "The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are Al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq." The President has made his position on Iraq eminently clear, and in the coming weeks and months we shall see what we shall see.
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
11/2/2002

He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda.
George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
11/2/2002

We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
11/2/2002

This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda .
George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
11/2/2002

And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work , and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
11/3/2002

He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind.
George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
11/3/2002

This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome
11/4/2002

He's had contacts with al Qaeda.
George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome
11/4/2002

This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda . George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
11/4/2002

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Speech
1/28/2003

Research by Quiddity @ uggabugga

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

nAz

07-12-2004, 04:29 AM

Q you make it seem like we were missled into this war r u freaking crazy! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 06:30 AM

Thanks Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Wally_in_Cincy

07-12-2004, 06:36 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>

...Mr. Rockefeller said.......Mr. Rockefeller said....

<font color="blue">Considering Rockefeller's political agenda, I would view his blathering with a jaundiced eye. </font color>

<font color="blue">I say "hindsight is 20/20. If one of Saddam's sarin bombs had gone off in Grand Central Station at rush hour the left would be screaming that Bush had not done anything to stop Saddam.

It's ironic that your people are moaning about the Iraq war when your big comeback argument is

"What about North Korea?"
"What about North Korea?"
"What about North Korea?"

If we went into N Korea I guarantee there would be thousands dead instead of hundreds and many, many, many more civilian deaths. And possibly a nuclear missle landing in downtown Seoul. Do you really want us to go to N Korea or is that just a diversionary argument?

Well, which is it? </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy

07-12-2004, 06:40 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> ...Something around 70%(?) of americans polled in the months after 911 believed that Saddam was outright responsible.... <hr /></blockquote>

Though I have no proof, I seriously doubt this. Maybe 30 or 40%. But keep in mind that's the same 30% who can't name the VP or the Sec. of State. So what's your point? Many Americans are uninformed dolts? Is this news?

Wally_in_Cincy

07-12-2004, 06:42 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I guess there just is not much to say, you chastise the White House for passing on misinformation which is much what you just did in your original post. What you believe is what you believe, right or wrong that is what it is.<hr /></blockquote>

All I did was quote a New York Times news article and ask for opinions about it, which I have enjoyed reading.
<hr /></blockquote>

And you had no agenda in quoting the article. Do you expect folks to believe that?

Wally_in_Cincy

07-12-2004, 06:44 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Quoting a prominent source, and pissing in some consevatives punch bowl with the determined facts will prompt arrows and spears, and lame excuses to say the least. We've let this administration break the principles this nation was dedicated to, we've played right into bin Laden's hands, and given the US a horrendously tainted reputation and a seriously more dangerous situation for years and years. Some short guy in Washington pushed this nation and all of the civilized world into peril. It's beyond me how anyone can justify this situation, and yes N Korea is far more worrisome. Nobody will ever convice me otherwise that an agenda was always in place to invade Iraq and that so called facts about WMD were made up. This is a crime in a monumental proportion, we'll never get out of this mess in our lifetimes, nor will generations to come contain it without a total loss of face. The shrub should be restless at night trying to sleep,,,that dim wit is still without a clue what to do, just like he was at the school in Florida. This is truly pathetic..sid <hr /></blockquote>

Another drive-by post by Sid. I would respond if you actually had any record of backing your opinions with facts.

eg8r

07-12-2004, 09:05 AM

Thank you for proving me correct. All of the quotes you listed prove my point further, they never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. You were even dumb enough to add in a quote about making bombs and poisonous gases which have absolutely nothing to do with what happened on 9/11 which further proves what I said.

Really, if you have trouble understanding that Saddam is a terrorist then that is your little problem. Comparing him to terrorists and including him in quotations about terrorists DOES NOT MEAN HE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

eg8r

eg8r

07-12-2004, 09:13 AM

Since you feel Q did such a good job, which quotes did you read that made you believe Bush was telling you Saddam had a part in 9/11? Or had a relationship with members of Al Qaeda in which that relationship could be directly attributed to 9/11.

I think you people are trying to just close your eyes and drift into a fairly land. Saddam is a terrorist, it is fitting to include his name with other terrorists. I would just like to know, when did you ever hear Bush say Saddam had anything to do with what transpired on 9/11. Reading Q's replies and your blind agreement with them is like talking to a little kid and all he can say is "because". The 9/11 committee admitted that there were connections they just said they were not pertaining to 9/11. The best Q could do was reinforce this. He did nothing to help you?

eg8r

Qtec

07-12-2004, 10:05 AM

Your answer doesnt surprise me. LOL

Ok.
No nuclear weapons, no stockpiles of chemical weapons,no nuclear programs and no connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

What was the reason provided to congress and the nation for invading Iraq. And why was it so urgent to do so?

Q

highsea

07-12-2004, 10:24 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>No nuclear weapons, no stockpiles of chemical weapons,no nuclear programs and no connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Q<hr /></blockquote> Yeah, that 1.8 tons of enriched Uranium the US removed from Iraq 2 weeks ago just proves that there was no nuclear program.

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 10:33 AM

...Mr. Rockefeller said.......Mr. Rockefeller said....

Considering Rockefeller's political agenda, I would view his blathering with a jaundiced eye.
----------------------------
I'm sure you would, we all have our opinions, and are entitled to them.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$

Is Bush making money off the war?? I'm confused by this.
------------------------

Many, many US corporations including: Halliburton, Kellogg Brown and Root, Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, etc....are raking in HUGE profits at the expense of you and I, the american taxpayer. Who funds Bush's campaigns? I understand that this is good for our economy, but at what price? We are losing freedoms and constitutional rights fast.

I say "hindsight is 20/20. If one of Saddam's sarin bombs had gone off in Grand Central Station at rush hour the left would be screaming that Bush had not done anything to stop Saddam.

It's ironic that your people are moaning about the Iraq war when your big comeback argument is

"What about North Korea?"
"What about North Korea?"
"What about North Korea?"
--------------------------------------

My people? The point is not that I think we should invade North Korea, quite the opposite. North Korea is a serious threat to us at present, but we won't do anything because the cost to profit margin is too great. Ahhh, corporate america. The white house does not believe in 'freeing the Iraqi people', if this were the absolute humanitarian truth, we would be in Sudan right now.

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 10:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And you had no agenda in quoting the article. Do you expect folks to believe that? <hr /></blockquote>

I used the article in an attempt to prove what I believe to be truth....that the current administration used the fear of the american people (by misinforming them to believe Saddam was a larger threat than he was) to send them to war for: a) political reasons such as re-election, b) massive financial profit for a few of the admin's buddies, c)to stabilize and control the second largest oil reserve in the world. Sure we'll turn it back over to the Iraqi's, but look who is appointing the interim president and other oficials over there.

Look, everyone has an opinion, and this is the point of forums, to debate them. I respect that everyone who has posted has a right to believe what they want to believe. I also have the right to try to convince those who disagree with me that what I believe to be the truth IS the truth. How else would we ever change the world for the better?

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 10:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Since you feel Q did such a good job, which quotes did you read that made you believe Bush was telling you Saddam had a part in 9/11? Or had a relationship with members of Al Qaeda in which that relationship could be directly attributed to 9/11.
<hr /></blockquote>

I thanked him for making some quotes that I didn't have time to dig up. You're nitpicking. I did'nt say "I KNOW BUSH DIRECTLY LINKED SADDAM TO 911". What is important (to me) is that Bush DID link him to Al Qaeda, which many people immediately link to 911. Thus using the fear of terrorism to fuel the public approval for war. He is a politician, and knows how to use the media.

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 11:00 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>No nuclear weapons, no stockpiles of chemical weapons,no nuclear programs and no connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Q<hr /></blockquote> Yeah, that 1.8 tons of enriched Uranium the US removed from Iraq 2 weeks ago just proves that there was no nuclear program. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not aware of the particulars of this story, but to have a nuclear program does not necessarily prove a nuclear WEAPONS program.
Do you have a link for the article? I'd like to read it.

eg8r

07-12-2004, 11:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What is important (to me) is that Bush DID link him to Al Qaeda, which many people immediately link to 911. Thus using the fear of terrorism to fuel the public approval for war. He is a politician, and knows how to use the media. <hr /></blockquote> Ok, tell me this...Who chooses the headlines for the news articles? Who does the editing and writing of the articles? Bush? Bush said what he said, which is quite different than what you have seen in the media. Bush never ever said Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda as far as 9/11 was concerned, however you were lead to believe that by the media. It is not Bush's fault that there are viable links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, it is the media's fault for misinforming you as to what those links are comprised. By never being clear on the type of links or the information behind the link, the media just tosses that into their article on terrorism and 9/11. The reader is led to believe the link has something to do with 9/11. This is not Bush's fault?

Why is the ignorance of the American people Bush's fault? You keep saying that the American public believed this or that, however the American public did not vote in approval to the war with Iraq. That was the Senate and House that approved the war. Even John Kerry voted for it, just before he voted against it.

eg8r

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 11:27 AM

<hr /></blockquote> By*(Bush)* never being clear on the type of links or the information behind the link, the media just tosses that into their article on terrorism and 9/11. The reader is led to believe the link has something to do with 9/11. This is not Bush's fault?
--------------------------------

But Bush(and his cabinet) knows this will happen......

-------------------------------------------
Why is the ignorance of the American people Bush's fault?
-------------------------------------------
It is not, but it is used, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN, by politicians or heads of states.
--------------------------------------

You keep saying that the American public believed this or that, however the American public did not vote in approval to the war with Iraq. That was the Senate and House that approved the war. Even John Kerry voted for it, just before he voted against it.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
-----------------------------------------
Yes the house and senate voted and not the people, but are they not also influenced by misinformation?

quote-
"The fact is that the administration at all levels, and to some extent us, used bad information to bolster its case for war. And we in Congress would not have authorized that war — we would NOT have authorized that war — with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."
end quote.

***I inserted "bush" as I think this is what you meant.

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 11:34 AM

Ta ta for now.....it's back to work for me.
Good chatting with you though.

<font color="blue">It's obvious which side of the political spectrum you are on. </font color>

The point is not that I think we should invade North Korea, quite the opposite. North Korea is a serious threat to us at present, but we won't do anything because the cost to profit margin is too great.

<font color="blue">We don't go into N Korea because it is run by an irrational madman who just might lob a nuke at Seoul. And of course if that happened we would be blamed, as usual.

Bush raised something like $275 mil last time around. Do you honestly think he would actually start a war so Haliburton et. al. would make "obscene" profits, and in return they would throw Dubya and Cheney a couple hundred thousand bones? Do you actually believe that?

A war invloving 160,000 troops and several hundred deaths for campaign contributions? Do you actually believe this stuff you hear from the left-wing spin machine, M. Moore and his ilk?</font color>

Ahhh, corporate america. The white house does not believe in 'freeing the Iraqi people', if this were the absolute humanitarian truth, we would be in Sudan right now. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Hell if we didn't have to babysit the whole rest of the freakin' world we might be in Sudan right now. BTW did you hear that the French, the self-appointed keepers of the moral high ground, refused to go along with the UN's plans for sanctions against Sudan (because of their many business dealings there). Now that, my friend, is a case of putting money over morality. </font color>

Wally_in_Cincy

07-12-2004, 11:50 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>.....I used the article in an attempt to prove what I believe to be truth....that the current administration used the fear of the american people (by misinforming them to believe Saddam was a larger threat than he was) to send them to war for: a) political reasons such as re-election,

<font color="blue">Well that's working out real well so far I see. </font color>

b) massive financial profit for a few of the admin's buddies,

<font color="blue">You're out of your mind. I sense a case of class-envy. You and Sid Vicious would get along famously. </font color>

c)to stabilize and control the second largest oil reserve in the world.

<font color="blue">Well DUH !.

Here's another news flash: we did not go into Kuwait in 1990 necessarily just to free the Kuwaitis. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

SPetty

07-12-2004, 11:57 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr><font color="blue">A war involving 160,000 troops and several hundred deaths...</font color><hr /></blockquote>"As of Friday, July 9, 875 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq last year, according to the Defense Department. Of those, 651 died as a result of hostile action and 224 died of non-hostile causes."
AP story (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/191/nation/A_daily_look_at_U_S_military_d:.shtml)

SPetty~~~has no "people"

highsea

07-12-2004, 01:14 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> I'm not aware of the particulars of this story, but to have a nuclear program does not necessarily prove a nuclear WEAPONS program.
Do you have a link for the article? I'd like to read it. <hr /></blockquote> I'm not sure why I bother, but here you go.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/index.html

Sorry David, but you strike me as extremely naive on the subject of the Islamic Bomb.

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 01:31 PM

Thank you for the link, and the insult...................
Yes, maybe, but I am learning...........

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 01:38 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>

<font color="blue">You're out of your mind. I sense a case of class-envy. You and Sid Vicious would get along famously. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Gimme a freakin break here. You're blind or choose to ignore what you don't want to see. You also seem like the type that would love for the US to just completely dominate the world.

eg8r

07-12-2004, 02:26 PM

Don't add words to my quotes to make your own statment. The media is not clear with the links and throws them around. Whether Bush knows this or not, he still is not pandering to them or even able to change what they are saying. Bush has stated there are terrorist ties to Al Qaeda. He does not need to be any more clear. He is definitely clear when he is talking about 9/11 and the participants. What part of that is confusing to you?

[ QUOTE ]
It is not, but it is used, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN, by politicians or heads of states.
<hr /></blockquote> You could be right, but we are not talking about politicians and heads of states, what we are talking about is the media's manipulation of the truth. Your defense of the media for doing this, because you think a politician might also do it, does not say a lot for yourself when you at least admit to it being true.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes the house and senate voted and not the people, but are they not also influenced by misinformation?
<hr /></blockquote> So then what is the point of your entire thread????? I think you are running in so many circles you are getting confused. If the senate is not influenced by the misinformation then why did they approve the war? My gosh, could it be because they all have believed it was justified. There are hundreds of quotes from congressmen stating everything and more than what you have heard from Bush.

eg8r

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 02:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You could be right, but we are not talking about politicians and heads of states, what we are talking about is the media's manipulation of the truth. Your defense of the media for doing this, because you think a politician might also do it, does not say a lot for yourself when you at least admit to it being true. [ QUOTE ]

I AM talking about politicians! I am NOT defending the media, you completely misunderstand me. All media is biased in one way or another. Politicians use the media. By saying "So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general." Bush knows that the media will immediately jump on it and impress on the people the urgency of invasion.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are running in so many circles you are getting confused. If the senate is not influenced by the misinformation then why did they approve the war? <hr /></blockquote>

You are the one that is confused, re- read what I wrote, you even quoted it, and you'll see that I said that they ARE influenced AS WELL as the american people.
Here, I will quote it again:
"The fact is that the administration at all levels, and to some extent us, used bad information to bolster its case for war. And we in Congress would not have authorized that war — we would NOT have authorized that war — with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."

Ross

07-12-2004, 02:54 PM

It is hard for me to see how anyone could objectively view what has happened since the Bush administration took office and not conclude that this administration really wanted regime change in Iraq prior to 9/11. It is also clear - except to the most biased - that the Bush admin was only interested in hearing and promulgating evidence that furthered this goal of ousting Saddam. All evidence for imminently dangerous WMD's and shadowy Al Qaida connections were taken pretty much as gospel by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz, while warning signs that some of the intel was probably exaggerated or was completely false were ignored.

The only question is then - why was the Bush admin so hell-bent on ousting Saddam? It certainly wasn't for humanitarian reasons (which were pretty strong). This admin pretty much ignores humanitarian disasters that don't have strategic or economic import for the US. And I don't really see that much evidence that the admin went to war to enrich the coffers of Halliburton and their ilk (although that might have been a happy side effect from the Cheney/Bush view). If you don't like this admin it is fun to believe this, but I don't think the hard evidence is there.

I think there were two real reasons this administration insisted on overthrowing Saddam. The main one was to establish a major US-friendly government strategically located in the mideast so that we will have continued access to mideast oil. Obviously the US economy depends greatly on our access to this oil (not to steal it, but to buy it). And our strongest ally -- the pro-US Saudi Arabian rulers - had been forced by it's large anti-Western populace to reduce US access to military bases in the country. Also there was the small, but seemingly growing, possibility that the Saudi leadership would be overthrown and replaced with an anti-US government. The admin thought - what if we lose SA? Where are we now? Not only have we lost a major ally but then SA becomes a threat to the smaller pro-US governments like Jordan and Kuwait. If they in turn cave, we could be in very deep doo-doo, oil wise.

The second reason was likely personal for GWB, given the history between Saddam and GWB's father.

The admin could never come out and say "we are going to war with Iraq so that we can establish a pro-US government that will help ensure our access to oil." So they essentially lied, and gave reasons that were more palatable - "we need to protect the US from the dangerous Iraq." This was a little hard to believe for most of the world, so they then distorted the information flow so that the proffered justifications for war (WMD's, Al Qaida support) were made more credible.

A year after the war, their deception in trumping up their claims (which the left was convinced of all along) became more apparent. But they may well feel that this was worth it since Saddam is gone, and there is at least a 50/50 chance that a somewhat US-friendly government will take his place.

I think the US hardliners could make an argument that the deception was worth it. Their argument would be along the lines that "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet." That the downside of leaving Saddam in power was greater that the downside of making us unpopular worldwide, pissing off our allies, and undermining our credibility. After all, people and countries have short memories, and maybe 10 years down the road the negative US publicity will only be a blip on the radar, but our semi-pro-US government in Iraq will still be chugging along.

On the opposite side the argument could be made that in the long run, a government should not fall prey to the "ends justify the means" rationale. That history shows that taking shortcuts by lying/deceiving or otherwise behaving immorally always comes back to bite you in the ass at some later date. That the same ends could have been accomplished (albeit on a slower time-table) without the loss in credibility and world opinion if the admin had strong leadership that was good at prodding, cajoling, courting, and deal-making with the leaders of the other world powers, both allies and non-allies.

It is possible that the approach of the left is too "starry eyed" and doesn't recognize cold, hard realities. On the other hand it is possible that the hardliner approach is ultimately shortsighted and counter-productive in the long run. But I can at least understand both arguments.

What I don't understand are those people who still want to downplay and/or deny that the Bush adminstration mislead the US and the world about their true fundamental reasons for replacing Saddam (only the hopelessly naive or biased didn't recognize this early on) and moreover that that this admin deliberately exaggerated and distorted information to give these publicly stated reasons more "punch" in the eyes of the public, the media, and before congress. Maybe you think it was worth it, but don't try to pretend it was something other than what it was - a PR campaign to justify a war the admin really wanted to happen prior to 9/11. Don't bury your head in the sand just because the guy's on "your side" ideologically.

Or do - if you like your reality ideologically-based rather than truth-based. Some people do, I guess...

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 03:32 PM

Thank you for stating what I am too illiterate to convey. I agree with you on every point you have made.

eg8r

07-12-2004, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are the one that is confused, re- read what I wrote, you even quoted it, and you'll see that I said that they ARE influenced AS WELL as the american people. <hr /></blockquote> You are correct, I did miss read your post. What about the rest?

eg8r

eg8r

07-12-2004, 03:56 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> I think there were two real reasons this administration insisted on overthrowing Saddam. <hr /></blockquote> [ QUOTE ]
What I don't understand are those people who still want to downplay and/or deny that the Bush adminstration mislead the US and the world about their true fundamental reasons <hr /></blockquote> First you think...Then you know. Funny. If you "think" there are two reasons, which support your "beliefs", then how can you possibly "know" the true fundamental reasons. To me personally if you can honestly state.."the Bush adminstration mislead the US and the world about their true fundamental reasons" then you should be able to state what those fundamental reason are? One would think. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you think it was worth it, but don't try to pretend it was something other than what it was - a PR campaign to justify a war the admin really wanted to happen prior to 9/11. Don't bury your head in the sand just because the guy's on "your side" ideologically.
<hr /></blockquote> I don't doubt that W wanted to do something about Iraq prior to getting into office, I just wished Clinton had a ounce of the same desire, call it backbone if you wish. To call it a PR campaign is childish. Even if 9/11 never happened, it would have been correct to go in and remove Saddam. Just how long should we have sat back and let him continue?

eg8r

Rod

07-12-2004, 04:28 PM

I give this post or religious posts little consideration other than a need to stir up a attention. For those that have the need by all means go ahead. One thing that puzzles me though. If you and any followers are so hell bent on making a statement to discredit the Bush administration; wouldn't your time be better spent in fund raisers for your party? BTW, What makes you think it would have been any different?

This crap has been going on well before your time. In the advent of the internet and forums it's just a way of people arguing that is not face to face. Nobody wins and never will. What will become of this post and peoples views, nothing. Go raise some money for your party, if they win, then you can tell us what a marvelous job their doing. Then the other party can find fault with your administration. And the beat goes on, and on and on-------

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 05:04 PM

I do more than post on this forum. This is something that interests me, and I have no need for attention, just a desire to read and discuss political views with some fellow pool addicts. I am also not 'hellbent' on discrediting the Bush administration, I am however hellbent on finding the truth. I am not 100% against this war or Bush, but I am against being lied to. I agree that political action is the best forum for change, and am becoming active in that area.
One last thing: you must have given this post enough consideration to respond to it. I thank you for that.

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 05:31 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You are correct, I did miss read your post. What about the rest?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I don't think we need to debate the fallability or bias of the media, on this point it seems we agree.
I am not completely against this war or Bush and I TRY to remain objective, because frankly I don't like the alternative either (Kerry). The hypocrasy and lies are a little overwhelming from both sides.

Let me tell you a quick story. A good friend of mine's brother was(untill last month)stationed in Iraq. He is a chinook helicopter mechanic. It was nearing the end of his tour and his CO came to him and said "You've been offered 20,000 dollars to stay another three months." He thought about it and decided to decline. He wanted to see his family. Well, three days before he was due to ship back, the CO said "I'm sorry but you have to stay for the three months and will NOT be recieving the 20,000$. I don't know much about how the military operates or how they get away with this, but they did. It's bull$%#@.

GW has CUT veterans health benefits and combat hazard pay and I'm sure there's more I don't know about right now. All at the exact time he asks our young and brave to risk their lives for 'democracy'. He has CUT budgets for first responders here in our own country. I know someone who worked (briefly) for the department of homeland security in Chicago, and he said that trying to get funding is like pulling teeth and almost non-existent.

I don't know if Kerry will do any better, but I do know that I don't like alot of what GW HAS done.

highsea

07-12-2004, 05:35 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> North Korea is a serious threat to us at present, but we won't do anything because the cost to profit margin is too great. Ahhh, corporate america.<hr /></blockquote>
This of course is utter nonsense. I swear, David, you have no sense whatsoever of the geopolitical differences between the mideast and North Korea.

The US has had 40,000 troops on the Korean Peninsula for 50 years. Where is the profit? Your claim that US foreign policy is profit-driven by corporate america is BS.

Do you think China wants a nuclear exchange on the Korean Peninsula?????

By the way, Ross, the US only gets 15% of it's oil from the mideast, and only 4% from Iraq. I don't think we are quite as dependant on it as you make it sound.

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 05:41 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
I swear, David, you have no sense whatsoever of the geopolitical differences between the mideast and North Korea.

Rod, I'm a big fan of your pool related postings and find your playing advice extremely helpful. But I think you are off the mark with this last post.

I'm sure some people post on political issues because they "need attention" or are out to "discredit XXX" (XXX = Bush or Clinton, etc.), but I don't see why you assume this is true of Crawdaddio's post. Posting the findings of a bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the quality of the pre-Iraq war intelligence just doesn't seem like a cheap shot at Bush. It may be critical of the current administration, but that shouldn't make it off-limits.

Some of us post simply because we think political issues are important and interesting. We like to discuss and debate these issues with fellow CCB'ers, who mostly seem like a reasonable, civilized lot and who, with few exceptions, seldom resort to name-calling or personal attacks.

Sure, you are right that some who read and post in these discussions are too close-minded to take in new information or consider new points of view. And I doubt many people are switching parties on the basis of these discussions. But I believe some actually do think about what is being said and are open to modifying their previously held views and beliefs, even if that is only a modest shift.

Personally I have learned quite a bit from these discussions / debates. I also find that responding to other's posts is helpful in clarifying and refining my own thinking on some political issues. And usually I even enjoy it!

And, not to sound mean to you Rod, but if you don't like political discussions well -- you just don't have to read them, do you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Ross ~ who finds Rod's sig quite useful when he gets out of stroke

Rod

07-12-2004, 07:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And, not to sound mean to you Rod, but if you don't like political discussions well -- you just don't have to read them, do you?

<hr /></blockquote>

No I don't find them interesting Ross which is why I seldom post to one of these threads. It at times seems like those flame wars on CCB which turns me off. I just put in my two bits and that's all. Go right ahead and I'll restrain my self in the future from reading these posts. I didn't read the post by the author until today let alone read any others. Glad my sig helps your stroke.

Rod

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 08:50 PM

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

Published May 22,2001 in the Los Angeles Times

"That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention."

This shocked me. Four months before 911.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the profit? Your claim that US foreign policy is profit-driven by corporate america is BS.
<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1115-08.htm

"Those negotiations (with the Taliban) were for a multibillion dollar pipeline to benefit US oil giant Unocal and Halliburton (a major pipeline construction firm and a company which made huge donations to your campaign, and from which the Vice President still receives huge financial benefits). These negotiations, and the gift of $43 million, make it appear that these companies, your administration, and your Vice President, were in bed with the very terrorists who attacked America."

Albeit, the source is highly biased, but did this just NOT happen? Is it a total lie? I can probably find more if I dig deeper.

highsea

07-12-2004, 09:24 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>"That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention."

This shocked me. Four months before 911.

"Those negotiations (with the Taliban) were for a multibillion dollar pipeline to benefit US oil giant Unocal and Halliburton (a major pipeline construction firm and a company which made huge donations to your campaign, and from which the Vice President still receives huge financial benefits). These negotiations, and the gift of $43 million, make it appear that these companies, your administration, and your Vice President, were in bed with the very terrorists who attacked America."

Albeit, the source is highly biased, but did this just NOT happen? Is it a total lie? I can probably find more if I dig deeper. <hr /></blockquote>

You seem to be trying to draw a connection between 2 totally unrelated things. In the case of the aid to afghanistan, that was for compensation to farmers for not growing opium. It was part of the attempt to reduce the herion traffic coming from afghanistan. We give money to Colombia for the same reason. It doesn't mean we are in love with their government. It means we are trying to reduce the huge drug traffic from those countries.

As you pointed out, this was before 9/11, and we had not taken a military posture with the Taliban at that time.

As far as the Unocal deal, that is hardly worth commenting on.

In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan’s ruling and ruthless Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan.

As Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What’s more, Clinton administration officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation’s visit was made with the Clinton administration’s permission.

Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.

read more (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)

So, where's the connection??????

crawdaddio

07-12-2004, 10:09 PM

I'm not picking on Bush, I'm saying that US foreign policy is often influenced by corporate america, despite who is in office. I also was not trying to correlate those two issues. I guess I should have just made two separate posts.

With the privatization of our military, which recieves somewhere around 40% of the federal tax budget, intense lobbying by massive logistics companies, and longstanding close ties between cabinet members and said companies, how can there NOT be connections?

Massive (alleged) overspending, and questionable billing practices(85.98 for a sheet of plywood?) by Halliburton is costing us millions.

Dick Cheney has wanted this war since the early nineties (if not before), and I doubt he cares for the people of Iraq (pure speculation /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif). Now he, and his buddies and stockholders (Halliburton,KBR) have gotten it.
Am I crazy? Are millions who feel the same way crazy? I don't think so.

I will admit that I am bad at backing some of these opinions with facts (which does not automatically make them untrue), but I know they're out there to be found.

Look, you're a logical guy, none of makes sense to you?

Wally_in_Cincy

07-13-2004, 06:30 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>
...We like to discuss and debate these issues with fellow CCB'ers, who mostly seem like a reasonable, civilized lot and who, with few exceptions, seldom resort to name-calling or personal attacks....<hr /></blockquote>

I agree, to some extent, with all of your assertions as to the reasons for the war. But I would like to add one more (from eg8r's post below) which may be more significant than you might think...

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ..... Even if 9/11 never happened, it would have been correct to go in and remove Saddam. Just how long should we have sat back and let him continue?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I believe Bush may have wanted to send a message to the wannabe Hitlers of the world that there was a new sheriff in town and we were not going to take any crap from a pest like Saddam.

Maybe he simply thought that it was the right thing to do.

nAz

07-13-2004, 06:38 AM

"Massive (alleged) overspending, and questionable billing practices(85.98 for a sheet of plywood?) by Halliburton is costing us millions."

I hate to admit it but this war is making a little extra $$ in my pocket.

"Dick Cheney has wanted this war since the early nineties (if not before), and I doubt he cares for the people of Iraq (pure speculation ). Now he, and his buddies and stockholders (Halliburton,KBR) have gotten it.
Am I crazy? Are millions who feel the same way crazy? I don't think so."

I am one of those crazy people dude.

eg8r

07-13-2004, 06:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Let me tell you a quick story. A good friend of mine's brother was(untill last month)stationed in Iraq. He is a chinook helicopter mechanic. It was nearing the end of his tour and his CO came to him and said "You've been offered 20,000 dollars to stay another three months." He thought about it and decided to decline. He wanted to see his family. Well, three days before he was due to ship back, the CO said "I'm sorry but you have to stay for the three months and will NOT be recieving the 20,000$. I don't know much about how the military operates or how they get away with this, but they did. It's bull$%#@.
<hr /></blockquote> While I don't know if the story is completely true (you never know all the facts), and if it is I don't know how they get away with it, however it sounds like the 20k was an offering if he agreed on the spot. Since he did not, they took the offer back and let him continue to work for his normal pay. He is still getting paid, but I would totally understand why he would be upset.

[ QUOTE ]
GW has CUT veterans health benefits and combat hazard pay and I'm sure there's more I don't know about right now. All at the exact time he asks our young and brave to risk their lives for 'democracy'. He has CUT budgets for first responders here in our own country. I know someone who worked (briefly) for the department of homeland security in Chicago, and he said that trying to get funding is like pulling teeth and almost non-existent.
<hr /></blockquote> I have read very little about the veteran health care cuts and combat hazard pay. In saying that, do you know all the information on the cuts. Here is one example that happens in politics a lot... Group A will offer $100 million for AIDS research. Group B thinks this is way too much money so they say NO, we will do it for $50 mil. Group A then marches right to the media and tells the whole world that Group B is cutting AIDS spending by $50 million.

eg8r

eg8r

07-13-2004, 07:03 AM

After a quick search in Google, I found this "article (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040323-2.html)" from March 2004
[ QUOTE ]

Senator Kerry has also had a few things to say about our support for our troops now on the ground in Iraq. Among other criticisms, he asserted that those troops are not receiving the materiel support they need. May I remind the Senator that last November, at the President's request, Congress passed legislation providing extensive funding for the troops, funding for body armor and other vital equipment, hazard pay, health benefits, ammunition, fuel, spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly with a vote in the Senate of 87 to 12. Senator Kerry voted no. (Boos.) <hr /></blockquote> I read a couple other articles that mentioned that the original bill only paid out Hazard Combat pay until September of this year, this bill backed by Bush and these 87 senators extended the original bill to December. I am not sure where your cuts are at, but please give some links to explain what was cut.

As far as Kerry is concerned, there are plenty of examples of him voting against military and intelligence spending. The one above was a good example since you mention a Bush cut which was actually an extension to continue paying the hazard combat pay, and this bill was the one Kerry voted against.

eg8r

Qtec

07-13-2004, 08:01 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>No nuclear weapons, no stockpiles of chemical weapons,no nuclear programs and no connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Q<hr /></blockquote> Yeah, that 1.8 tons of enriched Uranium the US removed from Iraq 2 weeks ago just proves that there was no nuclear program. <hr /></blockquote>

Witness Testimony
VINCENT CANNISTRARO
The dispute about the nuclear weapons scenario bubbled up as a major issue in late 2001
when CIA and the British MI-6 were separately provided intelligence analysis from the
Italian military intelligence service (SISMI) stating that the Ba’athi regime was seeking
uranium in Africa. American Intelligence analysts were apparently dubious about the
report given that the I.A.E.A. had in 1997 inventoried over 15 tons of uranium ore stored
in Iraq. The question was asked why the Ba’athis were seeking more uranium when they
already had a stockpile and still had no capability of refining and enriching the uranium.
But there were no intelligence data to contradict the Italian report.
The Vice President and his chief of staff Lewis Libby visited CIA headquarters to engage
the CIA analysts directly on this issue of uranium acquisition in Africa and the alleged
renewal of a nuclear program. I have heard that this unprecedented act, in which a Vice
President engages desk level analysts, resulted in a contentious give and take. The
analysts maintained their position that there were no supporting intelligence data for the
Italian report. The Vice President, who had publicly asserted the uranium story as proof
Saddam was acquiring nuclear weapons, insisted that CIA analysts were not looking hard
enough for the evidence. As a result of this pressure, CIA’s Non-Proliferation Center
sent Joe Wilson to Niger for a fact-finding trip. As we know, there was no evidence
obtained by Ambassador Wilson, or any other fact-finder, to support the Italian report. In
fact, further investigation resulted in the CIA acquisition of documents on which the
Italian report was based. The British reporting, making the same assertions about
yellowcake acquisition attempts, was apparently based on the same document foundation,
These documents were crude forgeries.
Officials in the Vice President’s office were obviously not pleased with the trip report of
Wilson’s fact-finding mission but these officials did not alter their views about a renewed
nuclear program despite CIA findings. Indeed, the Vice President reiterated the claims
publicly. According to testimony provided by the head of the NPC to the Senate
Intelligence Committee, his efforts with the NSC arguing against the inclusion of the
uranium claim in the State of the Union Address were to no avail. Memoranda to the
Deputy NSC Chief from the CIA Director saying there was no intelligence evidence for
the claim were ignored. The infamous sixteen words were included in the President’s
speech. When Ambassador Wilson went public with his Op-Ed piece in the New York
Times (after several media reports about the uranium acquisition report being unfounded)
the leaks from the White House began with the evident intent of politically trashing Joe
Wilson. But the leakers were unable to restrain their underlying contempt for the CIA
and exposed the identity of Wilson’s wife, implying that as a specialist in WMD at the
Agency she was already opposed to the reporting that an Iraqi nuclear program was in
process. There was also the suggestion of nepotism, as if traveling to Niger was some
sort of boondoggle. Again, Valerie Plame was collateral damage to the leakers who were
intent on destroying the credibility of anyone who doubted the Italian military
intelligence report, a report we now know is based on a fabrication and for which there
was and is no independent verification.

Q

eg8r

07-13-2004, 10:03 AM

Where is the link to the original document you are quoting?

eg8r

crawdaddio

07-13-2004, 10:41 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I am not sure where your cuts are at, but please give some links to explain what was cut.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I think you are correct, sir, and I retract my statement about cutting combat pay. Bush only proposed the cut, but got so much heat that the proposed cut was dropped.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0815-09.htm

The White House quickly backpedaled Thursday on Pentagon plans to cut the combat pay of the 157,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after disclosure of the idea quickly became a political embarrassment.

The Pentagon's support for the idea of rolling back "imminent danger pay" by $75 a month and "family separation allowances" for the American forces by $150 a month collapsed after a story in The Chronicle Thursday generated intense criticism from military families, veterans groups and Democratic candidates seeking to unseat President Bush in 2004.

And:

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/veterans/families.html

The Times said the Bush administration "undermined" support for the troops, and called the pay cuts "maddening." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution called the Pentagon's plan "heartless" and "simply unacceptable." [Army Times, 8/18/03; San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/03; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/15/03]

The fact remains that he wanted to.

eg8r

07-13-2004, 12:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are correct, sir, and I retract my statement about cutting combat pay. Bush only proposed the cut, but got so much heat that the proposed cut was dropped.
<hr /></blockquote> I bet this is a definite possibility. The republicans are pretty weak in the spine when it takes them standing up to the Democrats. Look how long we have wasted our tax dollars on SS and welfare.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that he wanted to. <hr /></blockquote> Is that the fact? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I wish he could find a way to drop all the special interest government spending that goes on. I might let you tell me it is a fact he wanted that also, if he would just grow a spine and do it. Bush is tough on terrorists but weak on Dems. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Ross

07-13-2004, 01:43 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I think you are correct, sir, and I retract my statement about cutting combat pay. Bush only proposed the cut, but got so much heat that the proposed cut was dropped.
<hr /></blockquote> I bet this is a definite possibility. The republicans are pretty weak in the spine when it takes them standing up to the Democrats. Look how long we have wasted our tax dollars on SS and welfare.

&lt;/font&gt;...
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

So you are saying Bush was right to try to "roll back imminent danger pay by $75 a month and family separation allowances for the American forces by $150 a month?" That he should have stood up to the Democrats and make sure these pay cuts for our forces went through? And at the same time you are critical of Kerry for not supporting the troops? This doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

eg8r

07-13-2004, 01:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying Bush was right to try to "roll back imminent danger pay by $75 a month and family separation allowances for the American forces by $150 a month?" That he should have stood up to the Democrats and make sure these pay cuts for our forces went through? And at the same time you are critical of Kerry for not supporting the troops? This doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something. <hr /></blockquote> Well, I guess you can twist it any way you would like, that is something you must like to do. All I did was agree that what was mentioned could have happened. I also made mention that it happens quite often and this is something of a problem for them. Whether the hazard pay cut was a bad decision or not was NOT the point of my reply. I guess I expect a little more thought in your reply's.

eg8r &lt;~~~reading what I just wrote to make sure Ross does not misinterpret anything or lend him an avenue to twist the words around

Ross

07-13-2004, 02:48 PM

I didn't twist anything, Eg8r. Your reply certainly implied that Bush should have stood up to the Democrats on this issue. But even so, I ASKED you if that is what you meant (that's what ?'s at the end of the sentences indicate) and even ended with the comment "Maybe I'm missing something" since your response didn't seem at all consistent with your criticism of Kerry for not being more supportive of the troops.

But to clarify, what do you think of the Bush adminstrations attempt to cut hazardous combat pay and family separation allowances? (I will be astounded if you actually answer this question directly.)

crawdaddio

07-13-2004, 03:12 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I bet this is a definite possibility. The republicans are pretty weak in the spine when it takes them standing up to the Democrats. Look how long we have wasted our tax dollars on SS and welfare.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

In my opinion, anyone who believes caring for our elders with programs such as social security is a waste of taxpayers' money has no heart. American healthcare is horrible, compared to almost all other industralized countries.

We need to spend more of that 87 BILLION right here at home, taking care of our own.

nAz

07-13-2004, 03:21 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>
In my opinion, anyone who believes caring for our elders with programs such as social security is a waste of taxpayers' money has no heart. American healthcare is horrible, compared to almost all other industralized countries.

We need to spend more of that 87 BILLION right here at home, taking care of our own. <hr /></blockquote>

your definitely not a neocon your a pinko!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I'm with you, all we caring people are. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Wally_in_Cincy

07-14-2004, 06:03 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> In my opinion, anyone who believes caring for our elders with programs such as social security is a waste of taxpayers' money has no heart. American healthcare is horrible, compared to almost all other industralized countries.

We need to spend more of that 87 BILLION right here at home, taking care of our own. <hr /></blockquote>

Do you really believe American health care is horrible? Perhaps you could point to a country that is better. In Canada and England, with socialized medicine, you must wait many months for any surgery that is non-emergency, such as a hernia.

Maybe the Scandanavian countries are as good as the US, I don't know, but I can't imagine any country being better.

eg8r

07-14-2004, 06:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, anyone who believes caring for our elders with programs such as social security is a waste of taxpayers' money has no heart. American healthcare is horrible, compared to almost all other industralized countries.

We need to spend more of that 87 BILLION right here at home, taking care of our own. <hr /></blockquote> SS is not healthcare. Please name some of the other industrialized countries that offer better healthcare. If you choose any with socialized medicare then you are not even trying.

As far as having a heart you would not even know. I do believe in allowing the citizens, who are paying in the money, to make the decision as to whether they want to pay in or not.

eg8r

eg8r

07-14-2004, 06:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Your reply certainly implied that Bush should have stood up to the Democrats on this issue. But even so, I ASKED you if that is what you meant (that's what ?'s at the end of the sentences indicate) and even ended with the comment "Maybe I'm missing something" since your response didn't seem at all consistent with your criticism of Kerry for not being more supportive of the troops.
<hr /></blockquote> I don't think I was implying anything except for the fact that the Reps do not stand up for themselves. I would have said the same thing if we were talking about any other issue. You did twist my words around. Your question (the sentence ending with the ?) was interpreted to be rhetoric which is exactly how I interpret the majority of what you say here. I did mention that I had not read much at all about the bill so I did not have a stance on it. If you would open your eyes and just read what is there without adding anything in, then this post would not have been so tough on you.

To water it down a little more, I said I probably agree with CD's interpretation of what transpired. My agreement is based on the past history of the Rep party. I hope that has cleared things up for you.

As of right now, I still have not gone out to read anything about that bill, so still, I have no opinion on it.

eg8r

Ross

07-14-2004, 08:59 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ross:</font><hr>I will be astounded if you actually answer this question directly.<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
As of right now, I still have not gone out to read anything about that bill, so still, I have no opinion on it.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r

07-14-2004, 10:52 AM

I never cease to astound you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

crawdaddio

07-14-2004, 10:53 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> In Canada and England, with socialized medicine, you must wait many months for any surgery that is non-emergency, such as a hernia.
<hr /></blockquote>

But, in canada, you don't have to pay through the nose for it either. Sure, income taxes are higher, but in my opinion so is the quality of life. Socialized healthcare is a much better system than giant corporations (hmo's) that drive healthcare and drug prices to whatever they want.

eg8r

07-14-2004, 10:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But, in canada, you don't have to pay through the nose for it either. <hr /></blockquote> Nope, you just sit around in pain for months waiting for it.

[ QUOTE ]
Socialized healthcare is a much better system than giant corporations (hmo's) that drive healthcare and drug prices to whatever they want. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you are kidding right?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy

07-14-2004, 11:00 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>But, in canada, you don't have to pay through the nose for it either. Sure, income taxes are higher, but in my opinion so is the quality of life. <hr /></blockquote>

So you pay for it with your taxes, the bureaucracy wastes 30% of it and what's left over after that is your health care budget.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>Socialized healthcare is a much better system than giant corporations (hmo's) that drive healthcare and drug prices to whatever they want. <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
The words "Socialism" - "Liberalism" - "Conservatism" are used in a very different way in the USA compared to the usage in the continental Europe and in Norden. In soc.culture.nordic we use these words as they are understood in Europe:

Liberalism and Socialism are in Europe basically defined as ideas with a great deal of heritage from early Liberal and Socialistic writers. Liberalism could be said to revolve around freedom from the power of the mighty, and Socialism around freedom from the power of the rich. Democratic freedom is per definition a Liberal virtue. <hr /></blockquote>

I read a study once that stated that americans recieve the least amount of average vacation days per year of all modern countries. In Norway women get a mandated, paid nine month maternity leave. Expecting fathers even get three months.
If I may paraphrase to the best of my recollection:
USA--14 days per year (average)
U.K.--20
Spain--22
Finland--30 something?
Norway--30 something?
Italy--42
There was alot more, but I can't remember.

Man, I've gone WAY off topic here, sorry.

Wally_in_Cincy

07-14-2004, 12:20 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> .........I read a study once that stated that americans recieve the least amount of average vacation days per year of all modern countries. In Norway women get a mandated, paid nine month maternity leave. Expecting fathers even get three months.
If I may paraphrase to the best of my recollection:
USA--14 days per year (average)
U.K.--20
Spain--22
Finland--30 something?
Norway--30 something?
Italy--42
There was alot more, but I can't remember.

Man, I've gone WAY off topic here, sorry. <hr /></blockquote>

and about 30 in Germany.

but have you seen the unemployment rates in some of those countries?

eg8r

07-14-2004, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I read a study once that stated that americans recieve the least amount of average vacation days per year of all modern countries. In Norway women get a mandated, paid nine month maternity leave. Expecting fathers even get three months.
If I may paraphrase to the best of my recollection:
USA--14 days per year (average)
U.K.--20
Spain--22
Finland--30 something?
Norway--30 something?
Italy--42
There was alot more, but I can't remember. <font color="red"> This is probably why they are constantly begging the US for help. No one over there wants to work. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I never cease to astound you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

No, you continue to avoid the issue as predicted. You said I twisted your meaning, so I asked you what to clarify why you would bash Kerry for not supporting the troops, but seemingly give Bush a free pass on the same issue.

So again, "What do you think of the Bush adminstrations attempt to cut hazardous combat pay and family separation allowances?"

Or do you think that is an unfair question?

nAz

07-14-2004, 02:18 PM

Ross why do you hate America so much?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif lol

eg8r

07-14-2004, 02:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, you continue to avoid the issue as predicted. You said I twisted your meaning, so I asked you what to clarify why you would bash Kerry for not supporting the troops, but seemingly give Bush a free pass on the same issue. <font color="red"> I am not giving Bush a free pass. I don't know much at all about the bill Bush tried to pass. How can I answer you. </font color>

So again, "What do you think of the Bush adminstrations attempt to cut hazardous combat pay and family separation allowances?" <font color="red"> Refer to my post above. I don't like the idea of it and I would probably not agree with it. However, since I don't know much about it at all, I cannot fully answer you. It is like you reading with your eyes closed. </font color>

Or do you think that is an unfair question? <font color="red">Do you think it is? What kind of question is this? </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> eg8r

Well, I have read the two articles that CD posted and the second one is pretty clear in the fact that the Pentagon was not proposing any cut whatsoever, they were just against renewing an already expiring bill. This is not the same thing. If you have a contract to earn $50 everyday till tomorrow, and after tomorrow I do not renew the contract, I did NOT cut your pay.

I hope you can understand this as that is exactly what the Pentagon was proposing.

Now, I do not agree with the Pentagon's original choice to let the bill expire. It is funny that you wanted my answer to this so bad, because it makes Kerry look even more foolish. Your attempt at getting me to reply and show that Bush was not better than Kerry completely backfired.

Even after the Bush camp decided to renew the bill, Kerry STILL VOTED AGAINST IT!!!!!!!

So there you have it, I don't agree with it, but it really shows how out of touch Kerry is with Americans. Even after all the outrage, Kerry (for once in his career) stood firm and still voted no. What a guy?

eg8r

Ross

07-14-2004, 03:10 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> However, since I don't know much about it at all, I cannot fully answer you. It is like you reading with your eyes closed.
<hr /></blockquote>
Well, let me help then.
From the Army Times ( http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php ):

July 02, 2003

Editorial: Nothing but lip service

In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.

For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.

Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.

Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others...

I was just reading back through some of this thread, and you guys were right about Sid. I didn't even notice. Too bad he didn't stick around, I like people who stick up for me /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r

07-14-2004, 04:13 PM

Sid is a run and hide kind of person when it comes to these types of threads. He comes in states blatant lies and then leaves. It is quite humorous, you would think someone with such convictions would at least have the desire to back himself up (or try). NOPE. Not Sid.

eg8r

Ross

07-14-2004, 04:59 PM

I didn't see any lies in Sid's post. I saw a lot of strong opinions you might disagree with, but what lies were you referring to?

crawdaddio

07-14-2004, 05:47 PM

Bush doesn't want us to know exactly what he knew......

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/14inte.html

[ QUOTE ]

WASHINGTON, July 13 - The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency have refused to give the Senate Intelligence Committee a one-page summary of prewar intelligence in Iraq prepared for President Bush that contains few of the qualifiers and none of the dissents spelled out in longer intelligence reviews, according to Congressional officials......................................

............Congressional officials said that notes taken by Senate staffers who were permitted to review the document show that it eliminated references to dissent within the government about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusions. <hr /></blockquote>

nAz

07-14-2004, 06:10 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> I didn't see any lies in Sid's post. I saw a lot of strong opinions you might disagree with, but what lies were you referring to? <hr /></blockquote>

I have to agree with you on this. i do not see any lies in what he posted and not everybody here backs up everything they write with Internet facts.

nAz

07-14-2004, 06:17 PM

One more thing close to the original subject, bUSH was "cleared" of not misleading the public about the war.but why are they with holding the investigation into something just as important namely did he put pressure on the intelligence agencies to show the saddam was a threat. why wait till after the election to investigate this? if i was bush i would be screaming to have this info brought to the American public just to clear my name.

eg8r

07-14-2004, 08:23 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> I didn't see any lies in Sid's post. I saw a lot of strong opinions you might disagree with, but what lies were you referring to? <hr /></blockquote> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid:</font><hr> We've let this administration break the principles this nation was dedicated to,... <hr /></blockquote> What are the "principles this nation was dedicated to"? How were they broken? This is pretty much a lie.

[ QUOTE ]
Some short guy in Washington pushed this nation and all of the civilized world into peril. <hr /></blockquote> This could be viewed as a strong opinion, however I would call it a lie since it is aimed at demeaning all the good that has been done. Plus what part of the civilised world is in peril right now? Let alone ALL of the civilised world. This is an exaggeration to the extremes which is where Sid is usually fooling around. Sid would never allow Bush a partial truth and allow him to get away with exaggeration however this is exactly how Sid presents himself.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a crime in a monumental proportion, <hr /></blockquote> Here is another lie, but maybe you are correct in saying it is a strong feeling. I would put it at minimum, a venture into the most extreme. It is ridiculous. Was Clinton referred to as a criminal in a monumental proportion when he removed Milosevic. Remembering that Clinton did not have UN approval?

[ QUOTE ]
we'll never get out of this mess in our lifetimes, nor will generations to come contain it without a total loss of face. <hr /></blockquote> C'mon, is this not a lie? Sure it cannot be proven until "generations come" can answer for themselves? I guess we will have to wait and see if it was a lie or not, at best it could be considered ignorance or yet another foray in the the most extreme?

[ QUOTE ]
The shrub should be restless at night trying to sleep,,,that dim wit is still without a clue what to do, just like he was at the school in Florida. This is truly pathetic..sid
<hr /></blockquote> This broad stroke of intelligence is coming from the guy who cannot even reply to a quote in which he "seemed" to be so passionate. Even in the last sentence, it is great Sid shows such compassion towards those kids in the school. Sid is so busy running his mouth about "generations to come" yet right here in this post of his, he is showing little to no respect for them.

It seems Sid does not believe in the very signature he attaches to each of his posts.

Just so I am not hurting any feelings, this was not an attack on Sid but merely only a breakdown of his post. Thank you to Ross for the request.

As far as Naz' post, no, not everyone backs themselves up with internet facts, sometimes you just cannot find the right cartoon.

eg8r

eg8r

07-14-2004, 08:26 PM

I forgot to reply...What was the date on that article? I don't remember seeing earlier in the day. I would hope that you chose something that was newer than the last couple weeks.

Witness Biographies VINCENT CANNISTRARO
Vincent Cannistraro is a consultant on intelligence and terrorism for ABC World Newswith Peter Jennings and other corporate clients. He is a recognized expert on politicalviolence and national security issues and has been a consultant to the Vatican on securityaffairs. Mr. Cannistraro is a former Chief of Operations and Analysis at the CIA’sCounterterrorism Center. Prior to this, he worked at the Department of Defense where hewas Special Assistant for Intelligence in the office of the Secretary of Defense (January1987-October 1988). From November 1984 to January 1987 he was Director forIntelligence Programs at the National Security Council under President Reagan. Before1984, he served as a clandestine CIA officer in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. In1989, Mr. Cannistraro received the Secretary of Defense’s Medal for MeritoriousCivilian Service. He was also awarded the CIA Medal for Distinguished Service. He hasa B.A. and M.A. from Boston College

.....and he was FOR the war in Iraq!

Q

nAz

07-15-2004, 04:40 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>

As far as Naz' post, no, not everyone backs themselves up with internet facts, sometimes you just cannot find the right cartoon.

eg8r
<hr /></blockquote>

lol I don't googles for all my facts if i did that i would be you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
i do not need to, i can see whats going on in the world by listening to Fox, Cnn, rUSH, you,the BBC and NPR but mostly by seeing the standard of living and fears of the people around me and across the country. as for the cartoons i think satire is a funny way to get across a political point, it's been used for centuries by pundits on all sides. besides i know how much it erks you too. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I might be a bit confused, but are you showing articles, from 2003 to denounce what highsea posted about events that happened in June of 04?

eg8r

eg8r

07-15-2004, 07:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
besides i know how much it erks you too. <hr /></blockquote> It doesn't bother me at all. I have replied back with a smile more than once.

[ QUOTE ]
lol I don't googles for all my facts if i did that i would be you. <hr /></blockquote> One knows how to use the net, one does not. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif The information is there, and you chastise those who go and get it for you. It just seems funny you have a problem with the way someone searches for their facts and presents them, I wonder how else would I be able to provide a link if it was not on the internet.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote ross:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will be astounded if you actually answer this question directly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well look at that, Q is making a post about me not answering a question, when at the very exact same moment he is hypocritically doing the same thing. Quite a stand-up guy are ya. Now, not to make you seem any more foolish than you are, continue reading through the thread and you will see that I did answer the question.

Well, are you going to answer the question, were you foolish enough to choose an article that predates highsea?

eg8r

highsea

07-15-2004, 08:43 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>I'm not aware of the particulars of this story, but to have a nuclear program does not necessarily prove a nuclear WEAPONS program.<hr /></blockquote>[ QUOTE ]
Mar 2002 August Hanning, head of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Services, tells the New Yorker magazine that “It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb within three years.” (Germany has been particularly assiduous in tracking Saddam, as he is known to have used German and UK companies when trying to build a nuclear bomb before the Gulf War. Mr Hanning was quoted in the New Yorker, 25 March 2002. “The great terror,” page 52.)

July 2002 Khidir Hamza, a defecting Iraqi nuclear science director, gives extensive evidence to US Congress (A full transcript of his Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is available on Federal Document Clearing House, dated July 31 2002.). It includes:-

• “With the workable design and most of the needed components for a nuclear weapon already tested,” he said, “Iraq is in the final stages of its programme to enrich enough uranium for the final component needed in the nuclear core.”

• German intelligence, with whom he has been in contact, believes Iraq now has “ten tonnes of uranium and one tonne of low-level uranium” – enough to make three bombs by 2005.

• “The Iraqi economy is basically on a war footing,” he concluded. “If Saddam manages to break into the nuclear club, he will become the undisputed leader of the Arabs.”<hr /></blockquote>
http://volokh.com/2002_09_01_volokh_archive.html
[ QUOTE ]
The chicken farm

Since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency Action Team have spent tens of thousands of man-hours deciphering the secrets of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program and dismantling its components.

The Action Team eventually came to a pretty thorough understanding of the program, which was far-reaching and well funded. But an important controversy remains about when the weapons program was created, and by whom.

Until 1995, Iraq denied having had any serious intention of building nuclear weapons, despite abundant evidence to the contrary uncovered by Action Team investigations. Then, after Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and head of the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization, defected in August 1995, his revelations about the scope and intensity of the nuclear weapons program threatened the credibility of the government's denial.

In response to Kamel's defection, the Iraqi government produced the so-called "chicken farm documents." Several days after Kamel fled to Jordan, senior UNSCOM and Action Team officials were taken to Kamel's farm, where a half-million-page cache of documents was stashed in a shed. The documents shed light on extensive programs to develop and build weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.

The Iraqi government said it had not made a decision to manufacture nuclear weapons. The government said, in effect, that it had been duped--that Kamel had developed these programs without authorization and had hidden the incriminating evidence at his farm.

To complete the scenario, a new story was concocted as to how the nuclear program started. This story was even included in Iraq's so-called "Full, Final, and Complete Document" on its weapons programs, submitted in several versions in 1996 to the Action Team. In its briefest form, the new story went like this:

In 1987 Gen. Hussein Kamel visited the Iraqi Atomic Energy Establishment (AEE) and asked if there were any plans to develop a nuclear device. Learning there were not, he ordered the preparation of a report outlining the requirements for developing a device.

This scenario gave the impression--reinforced by the Iraqi media--that Kamel had acted on his own, without Saddam's approval. Otherwise, why would he hide the documents on his personal property?

Later, Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz insinuated that Kamel had tried to restart the nuclear weapons program on his own after the Gulf War, in violation of the cease-fire agreement. Although no one bought that story (at least in private), it was one more effort to exonerate the Iraqi government from any nuclear wrongdoing before or after the Gulf War.<hr /></blockquote>
More on Saddam's nuclear weapons program (http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/so98/so98hamza.html)

Then there was the buried centrifuge. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/) More have turned up in Jordan.

......................In a sense, the program was in hibernation. He was the key to the restart of this centrifuge program, and he never got the order. So in that sense it doesn't show at all that Iraq had a nuclear program. And Obeidi told me that he never worked on a nuclear program after 1991." <hr /></blockquote>

The American nuclear and biological/chemical weapons programs are the most advanced, highly funded on the planet (as far as I know).
Yet our administrations chastise "rogue" nations for doing exactly what we do.

Qtec

07-16-2004, 01:32 AM

Highsea,s news is OLD news eg8r.There has been nothing found in Iraq,since the invation, that wasnt known about before.
Q

highsea

07-16-2004, 02:06 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> The American nuclear and biological/chemical weapons programs are the most advanced, highly funded on the planet (as far as I know).
Yet our administrations chastise "rogue" nations for doing exactly what we do. <hr /></blockquote>
Wrong again. The US does not have any biological or chemical weapons programs. They were scrapped years ago, and the weapons dismantled.

Also, as a signatory nation of the NPT, we have not conducted any nuclear testing or new nuclear development since ratifying that treaty.

I don't really care if you believe any of this or not. You can pretend none of this exists if it makes you feel better about your constant US bashing.

The facts are that Iraq had Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons programs, and they did not account for them as per UN Res. 687, which was the cease fire agreement. There are still a hell of a lot of weapons that are unnacounted for. Just read the UNSCOM reports. They have accounted for 1/3 of the Anthrax produced, and none of the VX nerve agent. They had weaponized Anthrax, Botulinin, VX, CS, and Sarin in large quantities.

They hid their enrichment programs from inspectors, and it wasn't discovered until 1995, when Kamel defected. The EMIS program went completely under the radar of the IAEC, because the technology was considered "old".

I never claimed that Iraq was enriching uranium in 2001. But to deny that there were nuclear weapons programs is ridiculous. The technology was there, the weapons were developed, and the only thing lacking was the fissile material.

The evidence uncovered in 95 shows that they were still working on enrichment long after the end of the first Gulf war. They had enough uranium ore and LEU that they did not need a working reactor to make more fuel.

highsea

07-16-2004, 02:16 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Highsea,s news is OLD news eg8r.There has been nothing found in Iraq,since the invation, that wasnt known about before.
Q <hr /></blockquote>
I think that eg8r was talking about my post that mentioned the 1.8 tons of enriched uranium that was removed last month. IIRC, you stated that Iraq did not have a nuclear program.

You countered with an old commentary about the "yellowcake" story.

They are unrelated. The 1.8 tons of enriched uranium came from Italy.

-CM

Qtec

07-16-2004, 04:58 AM

From your article,
"The departments of Energy and Defense removed "1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility,"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha.htm

As of 2002, the only known store of nuclear material in Iraq is in heavyweight sealed barrels at the Tawaitha research facility south of Baghdad. It consists of several tons of low-grade uranium and is monitored by an international agency with the full co-operation of the Iraqi regime.

Following the 1991 Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency removed all known Iraqi stocks of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 687. As of 2002 the only positively confirmed nuclear material left in Iraq is 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium and several tons of natural and depleted uranium. The material is in a locked storage site at the Tuwaitha nuclear research facility near Baghdad. Under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, this stock of material is checked once a year by an IAEA team. The most recent check was in January 2002, and none of the material had been tampered with at that time."

Highsea, your article talks about 1.8 tonnes of low-enriched uranium, could it be the same uranium?

Q

eg8r

07-16-2004, 05:37 AM

Here is another great example of you inability to comprehend english. Highsea's article is from only a few weeks ago. I guess you were as foolish as your post implied.

eg8r

eg8r

07-16-2004, 05:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. The US does not have any biological or chemical weapons programs. They were scrapped years ago, and the weapons dismantled.
<hr /></blockquote> I personally do not feel this is 100% accurate. The programs might have been scrapped (nothing lost, just no one actively doing anything on them) but I doubt seriously we have dismantled every weapon. In the chance that we were absolutely honest about all this, then I would be willing to bet dismantled does not mean the same thing as completely taken apart in a thousand pieces. I am sure the weapons can be put right back together in very minimal amount of time.

You can only trust the government so far, Republican or Democrat, they all still love the power.

eg8r

Qtec

07-16-2004, 06:15 AM

Highsea,s post implies that the US haad found some secret uranium and was transporting it to safety.
The truth is, they didnt find ANYHING new. As I have shown, all this stuff was already accounted for.

BTW Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? Both Rumsfeld and Rice are shown on camera[ begin 2001] as saying Iraq was NOT a threat and was being contained!

Q

eg8r

07-16-2004, 07:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
BTW Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? Both Rumsfeld and Rice are shown on camera[ begin 2001] as saying Iraq was NOT a threat and was being contained! <hr /></blockquote> I was wondering, was that just another quick edit that Moore is famous for doing? Moore does a great job of cutting out just what he needs, and forgets about the rest.

[ QUOTE ]
I personally do not feel this is 100% accurate. The programs might have been scrapped (nothing lost, just no one actively doing anything on them) but I doubt seriously we have dismantled every weapon. In the chance that we were absolutely honest about all this, then I would be willing to bet dismantled does not mean the same thing as completely taken apart in a thousand pieces. I am sure the weapons can be put right back together in very minimal amount of time.

You can only trust the government so far, Republican or Democrat, they all still love the power.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I was going to reply to Highsea, but I scrolled down a little, and there ya go.

Biotechnology is still being developed in the U.S.:

From just a quick search:

http://www.sunshine-project.org/

Recently, US military strategists called for a renegotiation of the Biological and Toxin Weapons

Convention to enable the development of gas-guzzling bacteria to curtail an enemy's mobility. Material-degrading microorganisms are already under development, again in "defensive" mode. One of the most advanced threats to the global consensus against biological weapons is the attempt to deploy biological agents in forced drug eradication ("Agent Green"). Fungi that attack drug-producing plants have been developed to use against coca, cannabis and opium poppy.
......................Verification of the BTWC is especially difficult because bioweapons research is beset with the problem of dual-use technology. Nearly all the know-how and equipment necessary for an offensive biological warfare program has applicability to civilian medical or biological research. <font color="blue"> A very thin line separates offense and defense bioweapons research.</font color> Also biodefense research can be problematic as in many cases defensive work generates an offensive capability. To test a cure for smallpox, mice and primates must be infected with virulent strains of smallpox.
...................These revelations were instrumental in triggering negotiations for a legally binding Protocol to strengthen the Convention. The Protocol would provide for verification measures such as laboratory inspections and export notifications. The goal was to complete the Protocol before the 5th Review Conference of the BTWC convened in Geneva in November 2001.<font color="blue"> The US Bush administration, however, determined that it would not support the Protocol, resulting in the collapse of negotiations. As a result, international cooperation to reduce the biological weapons threats has been in a state of crisis since 2001. </font color> The BTWC continues to meet, however, due to intense disagreements between governments, it has been unable to take up an agenda that addresses pressing problems. The next major conference of the BTWC will be the 6th Review Conference, which will occur in 2006.

To be fair:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/bw/program.htm

Iraq's biological weapons program embraced a comprehensive range of agents and munitions. Agents under Iraq's biological weapons program included lethal agents, e.g. anthrax, botulinum toxin and ricin, and incapacitating agents, e.g. aflatoxin, mycotoxins, haemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus and rotavirus. The scope of biological warfare agents worked on by Iraq encompassed both anti-personnel and anti-plant weapons. The program covered a whole variety of biological weapons delivery means, from tactical weapons (e.g. 122 mm rockets and artillery shells), to strategic weapons (e.g. aerial bombs and Al Hussein warheads filled with anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin) and "economic" weapons, e.g. wheat cover smut. Given the Iraqi claim that only five years had elapsed since its declared inception in 1985, the achievements of Iraq's biological weapons program were remarkable.

crawdaddio

07-16-2004, 09:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You can pretend none of this exists if it makes you feel better about your constant US bashing. <hr /></blockquote>

I am not "bashing the US". I am stating opinions about policies and practices within our government and country that I think are wrong and\or hypocritical. You surely don't think certain things in this country are not wrong. I love our country and all of its people. I also have a great deal of respect for ALL of humankind and their rights to freedom, liberty, democracy, and their denial of said rights within their own sovereign nation, if they choose. I think it is the right and the duty of every american to stand up and question authority, when they believe wrong is being done in their name. If this is "bashing", then I'm guilty.

I live a fairly comfortable life, and I am incredibly grateful for all of the rights and priveleges that I have been afforded. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

highsea

07-16-2004, 10:33 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>I was going to reply to Highsea, but I scrolled down a little, and there ya go.

Biotechnology is still being developed in the U.S.:
&lt;snip&gt;<hr /></blockquote>So now you are going to equate biotech with bioweapons? Let me refresh your memory.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>The American nuclear and biological/chemical weapons programs are the most advanced, highly funded on the planet (as far as I know).
Yet our administrations chastise "rogue" nations for doing exactly what we do. <hr /></blockquote> As your own source points out, the US has not engaged in development of these weapons for over 30 years.

Now considering that other countries have, we would be remiss if we did not attempt to defend our soldiers against them. So yes, there is a biotech industry in the US, and yes, part of that research is dedicated for defense against bioweapons.

There are also non-lethal methods such as tear gas, that are considered more of a crowd/riot control method that the US can employ, that does not violate the treaty.

The cabability to develop lethal biological or chemical weapons exists in the US, but the will to build them does not. There are too many more effective ways to accomplish our military objectives than these weapons, which are not very controllable.

And, eg8r, the weapons have been dismantled. Some of the agents are still in storage, most have been destroyed. The storage is actually becoming a problem as some of the containers are deteriorating after 30 years, but there are no rockets, artillery shells, mortars,bombs, or missiles in the US inventory that contain chemical or biological agents, and there is no doctrine in our military for their use.

[ QUOTE ]
A very thin line separates offense and defense bioweapons research. Also biodefense research can be problematic as in many cases defensive work generates an offensive capability. <hr /></blockquote>

[quote highsea]The cabability to develop lethal biological or chemical weapons exists in the US, but the will to build them does not. <hr /></blockquote>

So let me ask you something. Are you privy to every program that the US has in place? "Black programs"? "Classified"? "Top secret"? I don't know how you could possibly state that our gov. DEFINITELY IS NOT developing any kind of chemical and\or biological weapons without an all access clearance to ALL of the military (and other) labs.

[ QUOTE ]
The US Bush administration, however, determined that it would not support the Protocol, resulting in the collapse of negotiations. As a result, international cooperation to reduce the biological weapons threats has been in a state of crisis since 2001. <hr /></blockquote>

Why, if we're not at least looking at bio\chem weapons, would bush not sign on to this? We're trying to rid the world of terrorism, right?

crawdaddio

07-16-2004, 10:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
(Austin Ð 3 May 2004) - Today, the Sunshine Project filed a federal complaint against nine institutions, some of them major biotechnology research centers, for failure to comply with public access provisions of federal biotechnology research rules. The complaint, lodged with the National Institutes of Health Office of Biotechnology Activities (NIH OBA) seeks immediate suspension of federal funding to the institutions and a fifteen day deadline for compliance. If the institutions do not comply within that timeframe, the Sunshine Project has requested that NIH declare them ineligible for federal biotechnology research funding.
................Transparency in biotechnological research is particularly important now because, in 2001, the United States rejected the strengthening of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) through a protocol including declarations and inspections. Since it rejected legally-binding international efforts for stronger biological weapons controls, the US has allocated $15 billion or more for biodefense research, including classified research programs and types of studies that generate knowledge and capabilities for offensive biological warfare. The huge upswing in research on biological weapons agents has triggered a deterioration in public disclosure. <hr /></blockquote>

highsea

07-16-2004, 11:21 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Highsea,s post implies that the US haad found some secret uranium and was transporting it to safety.
The truth is, they didnt find ANYHING new. As I have shown, all this stuff was already accounted for. Q <hr /></blockquote>Where did I say this was a previously unknown quantity? My post was in answer to your statement that Iraq did not have any nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons programs.

I have further shown that they did not scrap their enrichment programs after 1991, as they agreed to do. The 1.8 tons of LEU that was removed came from Italy, IIRC it was about 3.5%. This would have been enough for one bomb.

The 55 tons of ore (at 0.7%) is enough for 3-4 more, but would have taken longer to enrich, because they would have had to use the EMIS method, or make it into a gas, which would have been difficult for them to do in secret.

Iraq tried to run a crash program to enrich the fuel they had secretly diverted from the French research reactor in 1991, but the program failed, because they were using gas diffusion, and could not get the levels of enrichment their design called for (15-18 kg. at 93%) before we bombed the facility. If we had not gone in in 91, they would have had a bomb by the end of that year. Ironically for Saddam, the invasion of Kuwait was the beginning of the end of his hopes of becoming a nuclear power.

Between 1991 and 1995, they had perfected the manufacturing techniques for the German centrifuge design. Also, they had acquired the machine tools, frangible steel and carbon fiber materials needed. This gave them the technical ability to do large scale gas centrifuge enrichment.

The problem for us and the rest of the world was that sanctions could not go on forever. Saddam was not willing to give up his nuclear weapons program willingly, removing him from power became the only option to safeguard against the threat and to get Iraq back on it's feet. We offered to allow him and his sons exile instead of war, and he refused. His sons were killed in a shootout with Marines, and he will most likely meet his maker at the end of a rope. Good riddance to all of them.

-CM

highsea

07-16-2004, 11:41 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> So let me ask you something. Are you privy to every program that the US has in place? "Black programs"? "Classified"? "Top secret"? I don't know how you could possibly state that our gov. DEFINITELY IS NOT developing any kind of chemical and\or biological weapons without an all access clearance to ALL of the military (and other) labs.

The US Bush administration, however, determined that it would not support the Protocol, resulting in the collapse of negotiations. As a result, international cooperation to reduce the biological weapons threats has been in a state of crisis since 2001.

Why, if we're not at least looking at bio\chem weapons, would bush not sign on to this? We're trying to rid the world of terrorism, right? <hr /></blockquote>

While I am not privy to all the classified programs in the US, the burden of proof still rests on you to back up your claims. But I do know some people who are very knowledgable on these subjects, so I am quite confident when I say that the US doctrine has no provisions for offensive use of Chem/Bio weapons. Again, the burden of proof is on you, because you are the one accusing the US of cheating on the BTWC treaty.

I will look into the reasons the US did not agree to the new BTWC protocols. My guess would be that it would have compromised our bio-defense capabilities by allowing inspections of classified programs.

You should try to keep in mind that these weapons are relatively cheap and easy to produce. If the we allow our defenses against these weapons to become public knowledge, those people who want to use them against us would know where we are most vulnerable. That is not in our best interests, no matter how sunshine.org wants to portray the issue. I notice that they do not mention the reason that Bush refused to sign on. Could it be that the reason is a valid one?

crawdaddio

07-16-2004, 01:51 PM

[quote highsea]I notice that they do not mention the reason that Bush refused to sign on. Could it be that the reason is a valid one? <hr /></blockquote>

I was also curious about this.

[quote highsea] While I am not privy to all the classified programs in the US, the burden of proof still rests on you to back up your claims. But I do know some people who are very knowledgable on these subjects, so I am quite confident when I say that the US doctrine has no provisions for offensive use of Chem/Bio weapons. Again, the burden of proof is on you, because you are the one accusing the US of cheating on the BTWC treaty. <hr /></blockquote>

Austin and Hamburg (8 May 2003) - The United States Army has developed and patented a new grenade that it says can be used to wage biowarfare. This is in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention, which explicitly prohibits development of bioweapons delivery devices.

US Patent #6,523,478, granted on February 25th 2003, covers a "rifle launched non lethal cargo dispenser" that is designed to deliver aerosols, including – according to the patent’s claims - “crowd control agents, biological agents, [and] chemical agents...”
.........“This grenade is another example of how the Pentagon's so called 'non lethal' weapons programs are consistently chipping away at restrictions on two of the most deadly kinds of arms, biological and chemical weapons. Programs that develop so called non-lethal chemical and biological weapons should simply be abolished,” says Hammond.

<hr /></blockquote>

I know, I know, it doesn't prove actual chem\bio weapons, but it is a means to deliver them. Curious, eh? Why would they create a device to launch something they don't have? Oh right, they'll only use it with teargas for crowd control, sure......

highsea

07-16-2004, 02:16 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> I know, I know, it doesn't prove actual chem\bio weapons, but it is a means to deliver them. Curious, eh? Why would they create a device to launch something they don't have? Oh right, they'll only use it with teargas for crowd control, sure...... <hr /></blockquote>That's right. It's a hand held grenade launcher. Used for crowd dispersal and clearing buildings. Do you think we would load such a close range weapon with lethal chemicals? Gimme a break.

Jeezus, every metropolitan police force in the country is equipped with this stuff. You don't think our soldiers should have it?

Also, from what I can tell so far, the reason the administration opposed expanding the BTWC treaty in 2002 was because opponents were trying to include non-lethal weapons such as tear gas and anasthetics, both of which have valid uses in riot control or fighting terrorism.

Remember the incident in Moscow? A lot of lives were saved when the Russians pumped the anasthetic into that theatre. Yes, lives were lost, but on a much smaller scale than if the terrorists had blown up their bombs.

The reality is that non-lethal chemicals have a place. It's better to chase away a mob than to let the situation escalate into a shooting match, where innocents will get caught in the cross-fire. It's better to knock out everyone in the theatre than to let the terrorists blow it all to hell.

Our uses of chemical agents are IN NO WAY comparable to Iraq's weapons programs.

highsea

07-16-2004, 02:56 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> I also have a great deal of respect for ALL of humankind and their rights to freedom, liberty, democracy, and their denial of said rights within their own sovereign nation, if they choose.<hr /></blockquote>Another classic crawdaddio statement. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

I wonder, could you give us a list of the countries who have "chosen" for the denial of these rights? For them to choose, it implies a democracy to start with.

And "Freedom" and "Liberty" are not rights if you are not willing to fight for them. JMO.

-CM

crawdaddio

07-16-2004, 03:03 PM

As much as I disagree with your opinions, I have to thank you highsea. This debate has caused me to research some things that I otherwise would not have looked into. I only hope that I may have possibly caused you to consider your position, as you have brought some topics to my attention that have made me re-think mine. (still thinking though, can't you see the smoke? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif)
Respect.

crawdaddio

07-16-2004, 03:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Another classic crawdaddio statement. <hr /></blockquote>

I think you may have a superiority complex. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

highsea

07-16-2004, 03:15 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> This debate has caused me to research some things that I otherwise would not have looked into. (still thinking though, can't you see the smoke? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif)
Respect. <hr /></blockquote>Lol, I thought I smelled something. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you want to decypher the history of the Islamic Bomb, start with A.Q. Khan. It's quite an interesting story, from his acquisition of the technology from the Netherlands, to his clandestine black market with North Korea, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and China.

A good place to get some insight into the Mid-east is defensetalk.com. Read some of the back-and-forths between the Pakistanis and the Indians there. Don't tell'em I sent you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

highsea

07-16-2004, 03:20 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> I think you may have a superiority complex. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif <hr /></blockquote>Would you have preferred if I had said "another incomprehensible crawdaddio statement?" /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

07-16-2004, 09:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And, eg8r, the weapons have been dismantled. Some of the agents are still in storage, most have been destroyed. The storage is actually becoming a problem as some of the containers are deteriorating after 30 years, but there are no rockets, artillery shells, mortars,bombs, or missiles in the US inventory that contain chemical or biological agents, and there is no doctrine in our military for their use.
<hr /></blockquote> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. As much of what you say is probably mostly true, but there is no doubt that what you say is not completely true. I can agree with no rockets, etc however, not all has been destroyed and I would guess it would be quite easy to quickly reassemble what has been taken apart. I just don't understand how you could believe we would leave ourselves vulnerable like that. There is just too much power. This is also why I do not believe Saddam ever gave up making his. A nuclear weapon is just too much power for a politician to gladly give up. Like I said before, you could be right that there are no rockets, but maybe that just means it is a tube with no control section (which could be stored near by).